When you buy a disk, who owns it? Is it you, the consumer, who paid the money, or is it the company whose software is on the disk? Do you have the rights to use of the software, in exchange for its purchase, or is it an area where the software you paid for is still the company's, therefore you paid good money for the disk and a limited usage?

When you buy a book, who owns it? You, the consumer, who paid the money, not the company who sold it. You have the rights to use it, without having it locked up, without reciting a code, without using it in only three places. The book you bought is yours to keep. This does not mean that you can copy it, but it means you can use it however you want, with no restrictions.

That is why I hate DRM with a vengeance. I buy a book, I get hours of enjoyment, and something I can keep. When I buy a disk, I find that I can only use the program in certain ways. I wanna be able to shape my game, tune it to myself. I'm not gonna steal a game, merely re-imagine it, like I do when I read a book. I don't have to follow TOS with a book, no EULA. I get the contents. I can't steal them and re-sell copies, but I can sell my copy to anyone, or use it freely. So, why is a disk different than a book?

Yes, books may have terms to restrict their use, but not overly restrictive. What I don't like is when games lock you into a specific multiplayer network, a specific configuration, and other small, relatively annoying things just to keep profits high.

Books do not have EULA's in them, what planet do some of you live on? Copyright notification has nothing to do with licensing, they are separate issues entirely.

The only reason you'd ever need to get a license for a book is if you were interested in breeching standard copyright law. A publisher can make allowances for activities that are normally withheld rights. For instance, an educational book will probably have exceptions for educational use that allow copying, or they may give licenses to educators.

I guess this explains why so many morons can't figure out what's wrong with an EULA. Licenses are to GIVE rights, not take them away. All copy rights are already restricted just by stating that it's copyrighted.

You do own the books you buy too. What you lack is the right to copy them, hence the word copyright. There are plenty of things in life where ownership doesn't confer do whatever the hell you want with it rights. The discharging of firearms outside of necessary use is, generally speaking, illegal inside city limits. Your firearm is probably even licensed.

Copyright notification can only release rights normally retained under copyright law, and you do own the book you buy, not just the paper and ink.

EULA's claim whatever bullshit the writers come up with and can include restrictions beyond the legal limitations.

Perhaps you haven't heard of first sale doctrine? Licensing software came about because vendors wanted to further restrict the usage rights of the consumers beyond that of copyright, but any such limitations were illegal. They decided to pass them off as licenses to try and get around the problem. Since the US is the only country I know of where they're being allowed to get away with this shit to start with, you could at least find out the local laws before trying to refute me.

Since the US is the only country I know of where they're being allowed to get away with this shit to start with, you could at least find out the local laws before trying to refute me.

Germany is the only country I know of that has declared EULAs illegal - and that only because the buyer cannot read it before purchase. Some countries have passed laws to outlaw specific provisions, but not invalidating them entirely.

Since the US is the only country I know of where they're being allowed to get away with this shit to start with, you could at least find out the local laws before trying to refute me.Germany is the only country I know of that has declared EULAs illegal - and that only because the buyer cannot read it before purchase. Some countries have passed laws to outlaw specific provisions, but not invalidating them entirely.

Same in The Netherlands. If the EULA can not be read before or during purchase, it's invalid. Our Civil laws take care of that. Also, any denial/witdrawing(*) from liability by the manufacturer is highly questionable since our laws don't allow that either.

Copyright is still valid though.

(*) Don't really know the proper English term for what I mean. (a manufacturer can't say: 'you can't sue me for liability'.)

I wonder if those laws have been challenged - most EULAs are freely available over the internet, so any interested customer could find them if they wanted to. Clearly the EULA can be read before purchase, the customer simply chose not to. An alternative would be to require the retailer to have a paper copy available on request. Even at a large game store that wouldn't be all that many.

If I sold games, I would not allow my products to be sold under those laws. To use WoW as an example, Blizzard would have no option to ban a user in Germany or The Netherlands for any reason whatsoever. The EULA is what gives them the right to remove disruptive users and cheaters. Any such person from these countries could sue - and win! - for being banned.

As for liability, different states have laws regulating what can and cannot be claimed as liability. Most warranties limit liability to direct losses, not incidental or consequential damage. For example, if a computer you use to run a business fails under warranty, the manufacturer is liable for the cost of the computer, but not for any losses your business may suffer as a result of the failure (loss of productivity, loss of critical records, etc).

Blizzard's EULA/TOU is presented to the user at account creation and before first login after each patch as well, so I'm not so sure that those laws entirely nullify it.

From my understanding of the German law, the fact that you can't read it before purchase nullifies the EULA entirely, whether you have to agree to it subsequently or not. You did not have to sign it to purchase the game, thus you are not held to it.

Obviously I don't know first hand, as I don't read German, and legalese doesn't translate well under the best of circumstances.

To use WoW as an example, Blizzard would have no option to ban a user in Germany or The Netherlands for any reason whatsoever.

Well, actually, the way I interpret it is if the EULA was invalid, Blizzard basically has free reign over the user's account. The EULA tells Blizzard what it can and can't do as much as it does the user, in the "If the user does this, Blizzard can do this" sense. So if the EULA is void, there's nothing stopping Blizzard from doing whatever they please with the account, since the user has none of the rights granted to him under the EULA